Intermediaries

Representative Experience

• Granted summary judgment on behalf of national transportation broker dismissing all of carrier's claims arguing that any alleged oral or implied contract claims were barred and otherwise preempted under federal law pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14501 (Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994). Custom Stud, Inc. v. Meadow Lark Agency, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134655 (D. Minn. July 29, 2022)
• Obtained dismissal of claims against freight broker on motion to dismiss for contract and negligent hiring. Pier Drillers, Inc. v. Freight Logistics, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 258184 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 22, 2021)
• Obtained dismissal of state-law claims for negligent hiring, negligence, and breach of contract against a broker (who was incorrectly sued as a carrier) as preempted by (49 U.S.C. § 14706, the Carmack Amendment. The case was later settled on favorable terms.
• Successfully represented carrier in defense of cargo claim in excess of $700,000.
• Obtained judgment in favor of North American freight broker specializing in container drayage against one of its motor carrier contractors in California Superior Court. The defendants were found liable for theft of two chassis and containers after the motor carrier defaced the chassis by removing all identification markers and replaced them with new fraudulent markers. The motor carrier defendants were also found liable for violating California Penal Code § 496 for out-gating dozens of loads from the ports using the freight broker’s Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC) avoiding paying daily usage fees for leased pool chassis.
• Negotiated significant settlement for freight broker who wanted to exit a term contract for storage of drayage chassis and containers with a California yard owner. The yard owner had failed to secure the yard on multiple occasions and failed to provide accurate tracking information of which chassis and containers had been in-gated and out-gated. The freight broker had three months left on the contract and potentially owed over $150,000 in contracted fees. The settlement was less than one-third of the yard owner’s demand, avoided what would have been costly and protracted litigation over the terms and intent of the contract, and proved anticipatory repudiation by the yard owner.